Catholic Analysis

The two greatest classic Catholic theologians after St. Paul are St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas. As in other areas, such as philosophy, economics, and politics, sometimes would-be disciples can give great figures a "bad rap." When, as is often and commonly the case in history, would-be followers are highly mediocre compared to a pioneering genius, they can put a pioneering genius in a bad and undeserved light. That situation happens at times with St. Thomas when you hear some individuals mangle his writings to pursue their own distorted theological agendas. Thomas was indeed a pioneering genius who took the best from the newly discovered philosophy of Aristotle and truly transformed it within the Christian biblical tradition. Thomas was also a mystic who famously considered all his dense work "straw" compared to the living encounter with the living Christ. He was also a prolific biblical commentator. Unfortunately, not all of his self-proclaimed "fans" match or even appreciate that profile.

In contrast, the late Karl Rahner, S. J., wrote an insightful, short essay on Thomas that captures the fairness, balance, and realistic objectivity of the Angelic Doctor. Here are some excerpts:

[W]e will say in the first place that Thomas is sober and objective. Anyone who has dipped into the Summa realizes this at once. His tone is quiet, reserved, almost dull; he is at no pains to find impressive words. He does not think it necessary to amplify the great topic he is writing about with high-sounding language, for that is quite impossible. . . . The whole is important to him and therefore every detail.

Rahner, "Thomas Aquinas," in Everyday Faith (Herder & Herder, 1968), p. 187.

That description is a far cry from the sometimes overheated "superorthodoxy" police you at times encounter crudely extracting passages from St. Thomas. If you haven't encountered such, consider yourself fortunate. Here is another excerpt which reveals why Thomas is so very different from some of his immature readers:

[H]e does not seek to impress but is himself impressed by the reality he is talking about, because he himself is still meditating and assimilating that reality when he is attempting to convey it in words to others, it is almost as though he were speaking to himself, quietly, economically, patient with himself and the reality, courteous to this opponents, as far as he has any or could have, because of the inner breadth and capaciousness of his mind. . . . This objective sobriety and objectivity reveals or hides awe, reverence, a deeply moving virile modesty, longing for that eternal light which is still directly shining even now, and the awareness that even in theology knowledge is only really theological to the extent that it remains fully and permanently conscious of its own provisional and inadequate character. Thomas is objective and sober in his thought.

Rahner, p. 188 (emphasis added).

Thomas was no Christian Pharisee bullying others with his knowledge. Thomas was one who beheld the glory of the Lord, a glory that he knew he could only imperfectly communicate to others: in one word, Thomas was humble.

In addition, too few think of Thomas first and foremost as a biblical commentator and exegete:

And though we unfortunately for the most part only study his Summa, we should not forget that he himself regarded himself primarily as an interpreter of holy scripture and that that function was simultaneously a learned and a spiritual office for himself and others.

Rahner, p. 189 (emphasis added).

This Thomist humility should be the hallmark of all of us, but certainly should be most apparent in those who dare to claim to be students of Thomas. There is, at times, a tendency to distort Thomas' precision of language into a new legalism foreign to the Gospel. Thomas the mystic is instructive on this point:

Thomas is the mystic who adores the mystery which is beyond all possibility of expression. Thomas is not of the opinion that because theology deals with the infinite mystery of God it may talk imprecisely and vaguely. But he is not of the opinion either that the precise language of theology should give the impression that we have discovered the secret and caught the mystery of God in the subtle nets of theological concepts.

Rahner, p. 189 (emphasis added).

At times, you will hear some of us "conservative" Catholics talk as if we have indeed caught the mystery of God in our concepts. We should be more careful and sober. Otherwise, we end up with a sometimes "clever, but not pneumatic [that is, not "Holy Spirit inspired"], not a genuine Thomism" (p. 190). We should be better students than that. We should not embarrass our great and still living teacher with our hubris.

Update: Related to the theme of the humility of Thomas is this article by Dr. Marcellino D'Ambrosio which contains a lot of good theology and common sense, practical psychology from the master theologian and psychologist (literally "student of the soul"), Jesus of Nazareth.